To my knowledge soul-detection technology does not exist in the STU. If it did, that would change the analysis, obviously.
-
-
Absent souls, the question of whether one or more of the copies is "you" has an even simpler resolution: Define "you" and I will tell you what the answer is regarding the transporter copies.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Note: I am not obliged, of course, to stipulate to your definition, but if you want an answer to your question, define your terms and I will answer it in relation to that definition.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
I personally offer two answers: 1) Legally, you died, and the copies are not you, they are just random individuals who happen to look exactly like you. Absent specific legislation to the contrary they are not you for legal purposes.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
2) For my definition of "you," which is "the superposition of states in my brain which collectively forms my conscious state," the answer is that they are all me at the moment of creation but rapidly become individual them. From my point of view, I have been, literally, copied.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
For a weird analogy, consider the fact that the Universe is expanding in all directions at once - and from every point in it simultaneously. Anywhere you stand, you appear to be at the center of the expansion.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Similarly, from the point of view of the copies, they are all me, and the others are all rapidly diverging copies of me. From the point of view of an outside observer, none of them are me: I stopped and diverging copies came into existence.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @WhippleMarc @MorlockP
It probably won't surprise you to learn that I agree with all your answers here. ... mostly. I would say the copies were not me even at the moment of creation. And of course the copies would agree. Although we would all agree that all the copies FEEL LIKE they are me.
3 replies 0 retweets 3 likes -
Replying to @random_eddie @WhippleMarc
@robinhanson I think the problem is poorly specified. "me" has a very nebulous meaning because in all human lives TO DATE it has meant a bundle of thing X and Y and Z... and this scenario proposes decoupling them so that #1 has X and Y, but #2 has Y and Z (or whatever) >2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Have you noticed that one gets a lot more engagement from poorly specified questions than from carefully and clearly articulated essays?
1 reply 1 retweet 5 likes
Valid! Btw, I hope it's clear that I'm not criticizing your or your questions, just discussing them.
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.